Cause of Pause in Global Warming

I'm not at all qualified to discuss the scientific merits of this piece. But, it seems to make a great deal of sense to me. I points out that there has essentially been no global warming since 1988. And, here's his conclusion:

Read the article for yourself @ http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=5261

 

From the article by an atmospheric physicist...

[QUOTEConclusion

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere—and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate
][/QUOTE]

Now who is gonna believe what a physicist says? What good is hard science in this debate? What do those guys know? Well, the climate models being used to cause the hysteria cannot represent what is actually happening. Is that of any importance? The models are settled science, no? LOl


If we were serious about this, we would be addressing the higher co2 levels with one of the earth's in place co2 removal system.....plants. We would be building greenhouses next to every coal burning electric power plant as possible, for greenhouse growers have to pump in co2 in order to maximize plant growth, yield and plant health. We would be addressing it with a less costly method, land management, and by planting more trees than we cut down.

Instead we are trying to take the most costly, but also the most profitable for some, manner of reducing co2 levels.. It's a money making scheme, that is continually generating hysteria in the public bone heads. So someone can laugh his ass off on the way to the bank. We are not really serious about co2 levels and global climate change.

 

When you start with a totally false premise, you can bet that you have argued toward a totally false conclusion. There has been no statistically significant change in the rate of global warming since the 1970s.

And indeed, we do get a totally false conclusion:

The idea that climate models are "based simply on increases of carbon dioxide" is so completely out of touch with reality, that you have to wonder if the author of this piece knows anything at all about science beyond the grade school level.

In other words, totally ignorable junk.

 

Let me guess, someone put that phrase in a peer reviewed paper somewhere and it is your new catchphrase? Waiting to quote it in a heartbeat, and not having a damn clue what the rest of the paper says, having not read it because...you don't even speak the language.

Come on Poor Debater, stop being so predictable.

 

No, actually the reverse is true. Nobody has ever put in any peer-reviewed paper that the recent small change in trend is statistically significant. They're not saying that because it's not true.

If you think that the recent trend is in fact statistically significantly different from the prior trend, it would be oh-so-easy for you to demonstrate that you do in fact know what you're talking about.

But you can't demonstrate that. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

HADCRUT4 global temps, 1976-1999:


Add the linear trend line:


Add the 1σ and 2σ error limits:


Project the same trend and the same limits for another 15 years:


And put in the actual HADCRUT4 global temps for 2000-2014:

And that's not even including the record-setting warm year of 2014.

Nevertheless, expect the denizens of Denierstan to close their eyes and put their hands over their ears as they scream "HIATUS!" and "SLOWDOWN!" and "COOLING!" and maybe even "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Just keep it up, PP, and maybe your mommy will give you a cookie.

 

My understanding is that there has been a pause in surface temperatures, the area of space we occupy. But that the warming of the planet has continued none the less. It’s just taken place primarily in the oceans is all. Further, recorded temps over the course of the industrial age reveals that there has been several other pauses, which have lasted decades at a time.

 

Any chance you have some data to show us, as compared to huge combinations of numbers that folks can't even show their work for, but can only chant "I assume Gaussian..I assume Gaussian....I assume Gaussian...."?

Just like in your prior referenced work? Let me guess...you don't even understand enough of the language to know what an assumed Gaussian signifies...or can effect...or why it can't be found within distributions of averages or empirical temperature data...and yet....these people assume it anyway?

Let me guess....you might have to LEARN something and if there is one thing cheerleaders aren't about to do...is LEARN anything about what they claim.

 

Here's a quick quiz to see if a person grasps basic statistics.

A set of 4 temperature measurements with uncertainties are:

0 +/- 1
0 +/- 1
100 +/- 1
100 +/- 1

What's the average of the 4 temperature measurements, and the uncertainty?

 

I have no idea, but if I understand it right, you have two temperatures at zero & two others at 100, for an avg of 50. But your variable means the average of the four readings could be as low as 49 or as high as 51. Assuming your uncertainty represents a degree, than it would be +/- 1. I'll say an avg of 50 with a +/- 1 degree uncertainty. Now, do I get the boat behind the curtain or not!? ;e

 

50 +/- 1

 

My personal conclusion is that the solar warming of the oceans is finally at a close to equalized state with the sun, who's peak TSI was 1958.

Look at it through equalization:



Or a rolling average:

 

Oh, so you want data, but you don't want numbers?. Gotcha. And please make sure your next answer contains words, but without any combinations of letters. Only then will we know if you've passed my personal vocabulary test, without which I will deem you beneath my dignity to debate.

As usual, you've guessed wrong. On several counts.

The last gasp of Denierstan ... having zero evidence and zero logic, our loser stands up and points a finger as he walks off in defeat, sniffling and saying, "you're another!"

Wake me up if you actually have any evidence.

 

So you're saying that an increase of ~0.8 W/m² in TOA TSI (since 1850) results in an increase of ~1°C (since 1850)?

That 0.8 W/m², after correcting for albedo (x .7) and sphericity of the earth (x .25) becomes a climatological 0.14 W/m². Therefore climate sensitivity, according to you, must be 1/.14 = 7 K W[sup]-1[/sup]m[sup]-2[/sup], roughly ten times higher than dozens of studies, from numerous lines of evidence, indicate. The IPCC accepted sensitivity range is 1.5°-3.5° per doubling of CO2; and since one doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m², that converts to 0.41-0.95 K W[sup]-1[/sup]m[sup]-2[/sup]. Or, to put it the other way: your graph implies that climate sensitivity is about 26° per doubling of CO2.

Your buddies in Denierstan would hang you from the highest tree for being such an alarmist.

 

First off, your 0.8 W/m^2 is incorrect. That is using among the lowest of solar studies. The 11 year cycle alone is greater than that. Second of all, the greenhouse effect is a feedback from solar input and increases and decreases nearly proportional to the sun.

The average of studies has the TSI increasing by about 0.2 percent using TSI + background since the maunder Minima. Here is what a 0.18% increase does:



I also contend that the solar increase is responsible for the most of the water vapor increases. This feedback can do a great deal.

The total direct and indirect changes amount to 0.93 W/m^2 in the atmosphere. Now couple that with water feedback from the solar heated seas, and we can account for most the warming.

 

The elusive water feedback...

If we assume that water in the form of vapor and clouds causes 70% of the greenhouse effect, with the greenhouse effect being 324 W/m^2, then it is 226.8 W/m^2. I have read where this has increased by 4% as a feedback. This 4% increase on a log curve from 226.8 increases it to 227.7. A 0.9 W/m^2 increase.

Now consider this from my graph.

If the 0.18% increase causes a n increased downforce of 0.58 W/m^4

0.58 + 0.9 = 1.48 W/m^2 since 1700. This explains most of the warming of the AR4 timeframe of 1750 to 2005. I use 1700 for solar because of thermal inertia and round values. We actually started seeing the suns increase out of the maunder Minima at 1713.

Now before you get all huffy-puffy about H2O feedback from the sun, think about it. Which makes more sense? Water being heated more intensely by shortwave energy where 50% entering the water is absorbed and not reflected to around 20 to 30 meters, with the remaining 50% being absorbed even deeper yet, or longwave which is absorbed within microns of the water, and effectively reemitted as black body laws dictate?

 

You were close, so you at least get some lovely parting gifts. The correct answer is 50 +/- 0.5. Error of a mean drops proportionately to the square root of the number of measurements used to get the mean. So, four times the measurements, two times less error. Ten thousand times the measurements, one hundred times less error. This is why the error of a mean can be much less than the error of the individual measurements. It gets much more complicated when measurements with different errors are combined, but that's the gist of it.

The point of that exercise was to illustrate PP's misuse of variation. He'd probably tell you the variation is 25, which is correct, but it's for the wrong variation. He's calculating variation of the distribution itself, not variation of the mean of the distribution. While that is a statistical quantity, it's usually not the statistical quantity we're interested in. If we were studying the trend in the size the average variation between high and low temps, that would be what to use. But we're rarely studying that. We're looking at the trend of mean temperature, so the variation of the mean is the quantity that matters.

 

Hey, it's your graph, not mine. From your own data source, the 55-year running mean was 1360.4866 in 1850, and peaked at 1361.2603 in 2002. That's a difference of 0.7736 W/m². (A real skeptic would wonder why temperatures have continued to rise since 2002, while the 55-year running mean has been falling since then. Of course, real skeptics are not allowed in Denierstan, only the fake kind.)

We've been around this barn before. Or had you forgotten? Krivova et al. is the best of solar studies. Much TSI work pre-SATIRE was based on a single flawed and non-confirmed study of sunlike stars. Since then further studies with better screening and larger datasets have shown that Maunder-like minima are not as low as we used to think. This whole argument reminds me of those creationists who insist upon using an age-of-the-Earth computation made by Lord Kelvin in the 19th century, not because it's the best science, but simply because it confirms their religious beliefs.

Yes it is. So what?

True enough. Now do the math, and show me that the 0.1% increase in TSI is actually the predominant effect, while the 40% increase in CO2 is insignificant by comparison. What's that, you can't? Well, maybe that's because you're simply wrong.

And our creationist returns again to Lord Kelvin. How predictable. Here's a hint: there is simply no justifiable reason to use bad science when you know it's bad. When you mix 50% pure water with 50% waste water, the result you get is 100% waste water.

So, increased water vapor in the atmosphere, by less than 1%, can do a great deal, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But increasing CO2 in the air, by 40%, can't do a darned thing, because it's a greenhouse gas.

Brilliant logic at work in Denierstan.

 

It's just statistics, and statistics do not make fact.

What your conclusion is saying in that it would be impossible for each of the four to be at their high end of error.

That is ridiculous.

Again, statistical math does not make fact, and I only see the answer of 50 +/- 0.5 to be correct if some percentage of probability within that range is also issued.

 

I made that graph with accepted data as not to combat more than one issue at a time. The issue of what study is closest to reality is a different argument all together.

Did you read this?

When going for the different argument, I made it clear I did not agree with the data.

I guess that flew miles over your head...

Too bad you must resort to such unethical tactics to feel good about making a point. I guess that does deserve pity!

I see you are full of confirmation bias.

A 0.1% increase would obviously be less. CO2 values are also in dispute in the science community. There are no solid studies that show it to be 3.71 W/m^2 for a doubling, in a mixed atmosphere.

I'll wait for your study that proves it so.

I getting rather tired of your childish insults, just because you disagree with me.

You should grow up and act like an adult.

Or are you only 12 years old?

As long as you keep getting my arguments wrong, you are just an idiot arguing with yourself.

 

Why assume anything, when it's been measured? Water vapor contributes 60% of the greenhouse effect, not 70%. Clouds both warm and cool the planet, depending on type, but the overall net effect is cooling.

Pretty close, but more recent measurements bump that up a bit. IPCC currently puts it at 342.

Better would be 342 x .6 = 205.2

I'm going to need a citation before believing that. Best current measurements show water vapor feedback at about 2 Wm[sup]-2[/sup]K[sup]-1[/sup]. That implies an increase of about 1%, not 4%, since the mid-19th century.

I'm going to skip over the rest of your calculations because they ignore the most basic fact: water vapor is a feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism. Like all other feedbacks, it affects climate sensitivity, but it does not affect the cause or attribution of cause. There still needs to be something that causes the initial warming, which in turn activates the feedback.

Since the mid 19th-century, TSI has increased by about 0.67 W/m² after eliminating the 11-year Wolf cycle. That's a climatological 0.12 W/m² of forcing after accounting for albedo and sphericity. Compare that to the CO2 forcing increase which has been about 1.8 W/m² in the same timeframe, about 15 times greater than that.

That's direct forcing from the Sun, compared to direct forcing from CO2. So go ahead and ignore CO2 as much as you want, because that just gives anyone with half a brain the perfect excuse to ignore you by the same token.

 

I'm done with you.

You keep making crap up and changing the argument just for the sake of argument, and only repeat the establishment says.

Goodbye Troll.

 

If you want to use different data, that's fine with me, but then it's up to you to defend the data that you're using. If you want to avoid a side issue by using the best available data, I applaud that decision. But when you make that decision, it is then intellectually dishonest to pretend that you didn't make it, or that you don't really believe what you're saying. So choose your data and stick to it. But be prepared to defend your choice one way or another.

No, I'm simply pointing out that one dataset is scientifically defensible, and the other is not. If you wish to rely on outmoded data that has not been confirmed in subsequent studies, go right ahead, because I'm more than happy to attack that decision, and the illogical thought processes that engendered it. Of course that decision on your part would be unscientific, but "unscientific" is just par for the course in Denierstan.

Totally untrue, and I challenge you to find a single peer-reviewed reference to support that false claim.

Also utterly untrue.

Hansen, J., Mki Sato, and R. Ruedy. "Radiative forcing and climate response." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 102.D6 (1997): 6831-6864.

Shi, G. Y. "Radiative forcing and greenhouse-effect due to the atmospheric trace gases." Science in China series B-Chemistry 35.2 (1992): 217-229.

Wigley, T. M. L. "Relative contributions of different trace gases to the greenhouse effect." Climate Monitor 16.1 (1987): 14-28.

Ramaswamy, V., et al. "Radiative forcing of climate." Climate change (2001): 349-416.

Iacono, Michael J., et al. "Radiative forcing by long‐lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 113.D13 ( 2008 ).

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The scientific method depends on subjecting one's ideas and thought processes to criticism. Science is no place for the thin-skinned.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that CO2 is a minor forcing agent compared to solar. I have yet to see you even begin to address the critical issue of how you know that's true, and how you compared the two. And until you do address that issue, your argument is worthless.

 

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf

Abstract:
We present an advanced two-layer climate model, especially appropriate to calculate the
influence of an increasing CO2-concentration and a varying solar activity on global warming.
The model describes the atmosphere and the ground as two layers acting simultaneously as
absorbers and Planck radiators, and it includes additional heat transfer between these layers due
to convection and evaporation. The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by
changes of water vapour, lapse-rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation. In particular,
the influence of clouds with a thermally or solar induced feedback is investigated in some detail.
The short- and long-wave absorptivities of the most important greenhouse gases water vapour,
carbon dioxide, methane and ozone are derived from line-by-line calculations based on the
HITRAN08-databasis and are integrated in the model. Simulations including an increased solar
activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 °C and a solar influence of
0.54 °C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 °C (doubling of CO2)
and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 °C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).

 

Sorry, but that quote does not support your claim. The amount of radiative forcing from doubling of CO2 is well known. You said that it was in dispute. To support your false claim, you cite a paper that deals with climate sensitivity to CO2, which is something entirely different than radiative forcing.

Care to try again?

 

Cool. You read enough to see that. But tell me, how can the sensitivity be half what the 3.71 W/m^2 would be without either negative feedback, or the forcing value to be wrong?